Situational Box Score - Michigan Preview

You can follow me on twitter: Follow @SaiemGilani

I don't have the time to review the Gonzaga game, but it was a nice win that will pay greater dividends down the line past this year. It also shows that if a team's games are less than "competitive" your stats are less than useful without serious adjustments. Let's look at the Michigan and Florida State Elite 8 matchup.

I switched back to separating offensive rebounds as their own category of possessions, it was making the late clock offense look ridiculously efficient by points per possession metrics, which just generally does not seem to be true without offensive rebounds.

For the purposes of this exercise, it's a simple basis preference and if anyone wants it, just ask.

Possessions by Time Interval
(Transition 0-10 sec., Mid-Clock 11-20 sec., Late Clock 20+ sec.)

Teams by Time Interval		P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast %	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	Total Offense	2588	0.944	2443	46.3%	52.4%	514	846	60.8%	122	349	35.0%	225	664	33.9%	496	726	68.3%	400	15.5%	448	52.0%	224	38	186
Transition	Initial FGA + TOs	842	1.027	865	51.4%	56.8%	208	310	67.1%	23	66	34.8%	62	194	32.0%	217	322	67.4%	122	14.5%	172	58.7%	112	9	51
Mid-Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	995	0.889	885	43.9%	50.2%	170	293	58.0%	58	161	36.0%	91	272	33.5%	156	230	67.8%	165	16.6%	163	51.1%	68	20	75
Late Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	751	0.923	693	44.2%	50.6%	136	243	56.0%	41	122	33.6%	72	198	36.4%	123	174	70.7%	113	15.0%	113	45.4%	44	9	60
Offensive Rebounds	Total	355	1.124	399	53.3%	59.4%	99	164	60.4%	13	41	31.7%	33	67	49.3%	76	113	67.3%	30	8.5%	44	30.3%	16	2	26
Opponents of Florida State	Total Offense	2597	0.882	2291	42.4%	49.2%	367	728	50.4%	174	452	38.5%	255	698	36.5%	444	621	71.5%	436	16.8%	380	47.7%	145	42	193
Transition	Initial FGA + TOs	709	0.994	705	48.1%	55.6%	123	215	57.2%	31	76	40.8%	70	175	40.0%	187	256	73.0%	125	17.6%	117	52.2%	55	10	52
Mid-Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	984	0.825	812	40.4%	47.0%	128	272	47.1%	67	177	37.9%	94	266	35.3%	140	201	69.7%	177	18.0%	141	48.8%	52	15	74
Late Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	904	0.856	774	40.6%	47.1%	116	241	48.1%	76	199	38.2%	91	257	35.4%	117	164	71.3%	134	14.8%	122	43.1%	38	17	67
Offensive Rebounds	Total	358	0.972	348	45.9%	50.8%	65	135	48.1%	31	59	52.5%	26	72	36.1%	78	107	72.9%	40	11.2%	34	27.9%	6	7	21

Teams by Time Interval		P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast %	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	Total Offense	2679	1.001	2682	46.9%	54.8%	522	806	64.8%	119	370	32.2%	326	887	36.8%	422	637	66.2%	325	12.1%	527	54.5%	206	37	284
Transition	Initial FGA + TOs	680	1.174	798	57.3%	65.4%	179	240	74.6%	15	42	35.7%	77	191	40.3%	179	266	67.3%	80	11.8%	171	63.1%	97	4	70
Mid-Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	891	0.967	862	45.7%	54.4%	150	241	62.2%	46	135	34.1%	121	318	38.1%	107	168	63.7%	122	13.7%	177	55.8%	53	18	106
Late Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	1108	0.922	1022	42.3%	49.4%	193	325	59.4%	58	193	30.1%	128	378	33.9%	136	203	67.0%	123	11.1%	179	47.2%	56	15	108
Offensive Rebounds	Total	301	1.183	356	55.7%	62.9%	80	121	66.1%	18	34	52.9%	34	82	41.5%	58	80	72.5%	31	10.3%	46	34.8%	9	6	31
Opponents of Michigan	Total Offense	2685	0.863	2317	43.1%	48.2%	450	779	57.8%	197	584	33.7%	198	596	33.2%	429	600	71.5%	458	17.1%	379	44.9%	178	54	147
Transition	Initial FGA + TOs	674	0.887	598	43.9%	48.1%	129	194	66.5%	32	96	33.3%	39	166	23.5%	159	231	68.8%	113	16.8%	98	49.0%	60	12	26
Mid-Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	1123	0.873	980	45.0%	50.6%	188	329	57.1%	90	266	33.8%	92	227	40.5%	148	214	69.2%	202	18.0%	180	48.6%	75	30	75
Late Clock	Initial FGA + TOs	888	0.832	739	40.4%	45.3%	133	256	52.0%	75	222	33.8%	67	203	33.0%	122	155	78.7%	143	16.1%	101	36.7%	43	12	46
Offensive Rebounds	Total	304	1.023	311	52.2%	55.1%	85	128	66.4%	20	50	40.0%	13	48	27.1%	62	89	69.7%	37	12.2%	30	25.4%	14	5	11

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	Transition Total	766	1.014	777	50.6%	56.3%	176	269	65.4%	23	63	36.5%	58	176	33.0%	205	306	67.0%	110	14.4%	163	104	9	50
Braian Angola	Transition	132	1.098	145	43.5%	51.1%	24	46	52.2%	2	7	28.6%	14	39	35.9%	51	59	86.4%	17	12.9%	29	21	3	5
CJ Walker	Transition	131	0.740	97	37.8%	44.6%	17	36	47.2%	1	5	20.0%	10	33	30.3%	31	41	75.6%	19	14.5%	36	23	2	11
Trent Forrest	Transition	124	0.952	118	66.1%	66.9%	35	52	67.3%	3	4	75.0%	1	3	33.3%	39	68	57.4%	18	14.5%	44	25	0	19
Terance Mann	Transition	105	1.143	120	64.9%	65.5%	40	50	80.0%	7	16	43.8%	1	8	12.5%	23	40	57.5%	18	17.1%	28	19	2	7
Phil Cofer	Transition	88	1.023	90	48.4%	50.8%	22	31	71.0%	5	11	45.5%	3	20	15.0%	27	43	62.8%	10	11.4%	7	4	0	3
M.J. Walker	Transition	69	1.000	69	41.2%	51.0%	10	17	58.8%	1	5	20.0%	10	29	34.5%	17	23	73.9%	11	15.9%	9	4	1	4
PJ Savoy	Transition	37	1.405	52	47.4%	65.8%	4	5	80.0%	0	2	0.0%	14	31	45.2%	2	3	66.7%	4	10.8%	5	3	1	1
Mfiondu Kabengele	Transition	36	1.222	44	48.3%	55.2%	9	13	69.2%	1	5	20.0%	4	11	36.4%	12	14	85.7%	4	11.1%	1	1	0	0
Christ Koumadje	Transition	20	1.000	20	56.3%	56.3%	7	10	70.0%	2	6	33.3%	0	0	0.0%	2	8	25.0%	3	15.0%	0	0	0	0
Ike Obiagu	Transition	19	0.895	17	80.0%	80.0%	7	8	87.5%	1	2	50.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	7	14.3%	6	31.6%	1	1	0	0
Brandon Allen	Transition	5	1.000	5	66.7%	83.3%	1	1	100.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	2	50.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	2	2	0	0

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	Transition Total	626	1.184	741	58.2%	66.6%	164	221	74.2%	15	39	38.5%	73	173	42.2%	164	250	65.6%	75	12.0%	161	92	4	65
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman	Transition	126	0.992	125	46.3%	55.0%	20	33	60.6%	3	9	33.3%	14	38	36.8%	37	52	71.2%	11	8.7%	43	23	1	19
Charles Matthews	Transition	104	1.125	117	63.5%	67.6%	36	51	70.6%	5	7	71.4%	6	16	37.5%	17	38	44.7%	15	14.4%	14	4	1	9
Zavier Simpson	Transition	73	1.068	78	66.7%	67.9%	23	30	76.7%	2	4	50.0%	1	5	20.0%	25	44	56.8%	9	12.3%	34	25	1	8
Duncan Robinson	Transition	69	1.565	108	58.3%	74.2%	15	20	75.0%	1	5	20.0%	19	35	54.3%	19	21	90.5%	6	8.7%	16	10	0	6
Jordan Poole	Transition	60	1.217	73	54.5%	65.9%	14	18	77.8%	0	3	0.0%	10	23	43.5%	15	18	83.3%	13	21.7%	6	4	0	2
Moritz Wagner	Transition	59	1.593	94	67.4%	80.2%	17	20	85.0%	1	2	50.0%	11	21	52.4%	25	31	80.6%	6	10.2%	7	4	0	3
Isaiah Livers	Transition	33	1.394	46	57.6%	65.2%	13	17	76.5%	1	3	33.3%	5	13	38.5%	3	4	75.0%	4	12.1%	3	1	0	2
Eli Brooks	Transition	22	0.682	15	33.3%	33.3%	4	6	66.7%	0	1	0.0%	0	5	0.0%	7	10	70.0%	2	9.1%	8	2	1	5
Jaaron Simmons	Transition	22	1.136	25	66.7%	73.3%	8	9	88.9%	0	1	0.0%	2	5	40.0%	3	5	60.0%	2	9.1%	8	5	0	3
Jon Teske	Transition	21	1.143	24	80.0%	80.0%	7	8	87.5%	1	2	50.0%	0	0	0.0%	8	16	50.0%	2	9.5%	2	1	0	1
Ibi Watson	Transition	17	1.118	19	40.0%	53.3%	1	3	33.3%	1	2	50.0%	4	10	40.0%	3	6	50.0%	0	0.0%	4	2	0	2
Xavier Simpson	Transition	16	0.813	13	100.0%	110.0%	4	4	100.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	1	100.0%	2	5	40.0%	4	25.0%	16	11	0	5

Note: Michigan Offense is on the Left and Michigan Defense is on the right. For ease of comparison, I have flipped the FSU offense and defense so that if you look at both transition shot charts on the left hand side, you're comparing the Michigan offense and the FSU defense, and the Michigan Defense to the Florida State Offense for the right hand side.

Transition
Florida State: 32.5% O, 27.3% D
Michigan: 25.3% O, 25.1% D

Led by Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman and his 125 points (20 transition layups or dunks and 14 transition three pointers.) He had no problem sharing the wealth, dishing out 43 assists in transition (23 at the rim, 19 from deep)
Michigan scored 29 % of their points on initial field goal attempts in transition from 3, while shooting 40.3% (60.5% eFG%)
Charles Matthews leads the team in transition layups and dunks with 36 on the year on 76.7% shooting at the rim but he is a real liability at the line with a 17/38 FT performance in transition
Duncan Robinson leads Michigan with 19 transition three pointers made while shooting 54.3% (81.5% eFG%), with 58.3% of his attempts being 3’s in transition. He also shot 15/20 at the rim and 19/21 at the line in transition. That’s a key player to keep in check.
Michigan also has two other shooters double digit transition 3’s, Jordan Poole (10/23 or 43.5%, 65.2% eFG%) and Moritz Wagner (11/21 or 52.3%, 78.5% eFG%)
FSU is led in transition with Braian Angola’s 145 points in transition, with 35% of those coming at the line. These also include end of game FTs, which can add up, but he has otherwise done just fine with 14 transition 3’s on 36% (54% eFG%) shooting from 3.
PJ Savoy has come on strong late with 82% of his transition attempts being 3’s and hitting 45.2% of them (67.8% eFG%) Playing catchup to finish the year right, I respect the hustle
Terance Mann and Trent Forrest lead the Noles in breakaways with 40 and 35 layups or dunks in transition on 74% shooting for the pair.
CJ Walker and Trent Forrest lead the team in transition assists, with 36 and 44 assists respectively.

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	Mid-Clock Total	868	0.947	822	45.4%	52.3%	147	248	59.3%	55	146	37.7%	89	247	36.0%	151	222	68.0%	143	16.5%	155	62	20	73
Terance Mann	Mid-Clock	130	1.008	131	52.7%	55.9%	33	44	75.0%	10	30	33.3%	6	19	31.6%	27	37	73.0%	16	12.3%	26	9	3	14
Phil Cofer	Mid-Clock	127	1.354	172	48.9%	58.3%	26	44	59.1%	14	36	38.9%	25	53	47.2%	17	22	77.3%	12	9.4%	4	2	1	1
Braian Angola	Mid-Clock	127	0.819	104	36.3%	44.5%	13	25	52.0%	5	18	27.8%	15	48	31.3%	23	30	76.7%	23	18.1%	38	16	6	16
Mfiondu Kabengele	Mid-Clock	92	0.935	86	51.6%	53.2%	22	29	75.9%	8	26	30.8%	2	7	28.6%	20	39	51.3%	13	14.1%	5	2	0	3
M.J. Walker	Mid-Clock	92	0.783	72	34.8%	43.5%	7	18	38.9%	5	11	45.5%	12	40	30.0%	12	16	75.0%	14	15.2%	17	8	3	6
Trent Forrest	Mid-Clock	90	0.678	61	50.0%	51.2%	18	33	54.5%	2	4	50.0%	1	5	20.0%	18	24	75.0%	24	26.7%	35	11	3	21
CJ Walker	Mid-Clock	78	0.923	72	48.1%	60.6%	9	19	47.4%	3	5	60.0%	13	28	46.4%	9	12	75.0%	13	16.7%	21	10	2	9
PJ Savoy	Mid-Clock	51	1.000	51	31.9%	46.8%	0	1	0.0%	1	4	25.0%	14	42	33.3%	7	10	70.0%	10	19.6%	3	2	0	1
Christ Koumadje	Mid-Clock	46	0.978	45	51.6%	51.6%	11	22	50.0%	5	9	55.6%	0	0	0.0%	13	19	68.4%	5	10.9%	3	2	1	0
Ike Obiagu	Mid-Clock	22	1.045	23	60.0%	60.0%	7	12	58.3%	2	3	66.7%	0	0	0.0%	5	13	38.5%	6	27.3%	1	0	0	1
Brandon Allen	Mid-Clock	9	0.556	5	66.7%	83.3%	1	1	100.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	2	50.0%	0	0	0.0%	6	66.7%	1	0	0	1

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	Mid-Clock Total	800	1.010	808	48.3%	57.2%	142	225	63.1%	45	127	35.4%	109	261	41.8%	107	168	63.7%	110	13.8%	171	52	18	101
Charles Matthews	Mid-Clock	147	1.014	149	54.2%	58.4%	33	48	68.8%	16	35	45.7%	9	24	37.5%	24	39	61.5%	25	17.0%	36	7	2	27
Moritz Wagner	Mid-Clock	136	1.081	147	48.3%	56.3%	32	51	62.7%	7	20	35.0%	19	49	38.8%	12	20	60.0%	17	12.5%	12	4	0	8
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman	Mid-Clock	135	0.985	133	41.7%	51.4%	17	38	44.7%	7	23	30.4%	21	47	44.7%	22	28	78.6%	8	5.9%	30	7	1	22
Duncan Robinson	Mid-Clock	85	1.376	117	48.1%	64.9%	7	12	58.3%	4	9	44.4%	26	56	46.4%	17	20	85.0%	4	4.7%	11	5	3	3
Zavier Simpson	Mid-Clock	78	0.654	51	50.0%	53.6%	17	26	65.4%	1	3	33.3%	3	13	23.1%	6	15	40.0%	19	24.4%	29	8	4	17
Jordan Poole	Mid-Clock	48	1.000	48	42.9%	55.7%	4	4	100.0%	2	9	22.2%	9	22	40.9%	9	11	81.8%	6	12.5%	11	4	1	6
Jon Teske	Mid-Clock	42	0.976	41	51.9%	51.9%	11	16	68.8%	3	11	27.3%	0	0	0.0%	13	23	56.5%	5	11.9%	7	2	2	3
Isaiah Livers	Mid-Clock	32	1.281	41	58.6%	70.7%	8	10	80.0%	2	5	40.0%	7	14	50.0%	0	1	0.0%	7	21.9%	5	2	0	3
Eli Brooks	Mid-Clock	31	0.710	22	33.3%	43.8%	2	4	50.0%	1	3	33.3%	5	17	29.4%	1	2	50.0%	6	19.4%	10	6	1	3
Jaaron Simmons	Mid-Clock	21	0.476	10	36.4%	40.9%	3	5	60.0%	0	2	0.0%	1	4	25.0%	1	5	20.0%	5	23.8%	8	3	0	5
Xavier Simpson	Mid-Clock	20	1.000	20	58.3%	83.3%	1	2	50.0%	0	1	0.0%	6	9	66.7%	0	0	0.0%	3	15.0%	10	4	2	4
Ibi Watson	Mid-Clock	15	1.267	19	57.1%	67.9%	3	4	75.0%	2	5	40.0%	3	5	60.0%	0	1	0.0%	2	13.3%	2	0	2	0

Mid-Clock

Michigan: 33.2% O, 41.8% D

Florida State: 38.4% O, 37.8% D

Charles Matthews led the team in points in the mid-clock offense with 149 points. Mathews shot 69% at the rim, but 46% on 35 mid-range jumpers, 61% at the line and 25 turnovers (17%)
Moritz Wagner finished as the second leading scorer, managing to shoot 63% at the rim on 51 attempts and 39% from deep on 39 attempts.
Wagner, Abdur-Rahkman and Robinson each hit at least 19 threes in the mid-clock interval with Robinson leading with 26. By comparison, Phil Cofer is the only Seminole to hit more than 15, with 25/53 shooting (47.2% and 70.8% eFG%).
FSU did have at least four guys with at least a dozen makes from distance (Savoy, CJ Walker and MJ being the others). That is important because at least teams are not able to sag closer to the paint to narrow driving lanes.
Trent Forrest led the team with 24 turnovers a 26.7% TO%, but also managing 21 three point assists and 35 total assists. Braian Angola led the team with 38 assists (16 at the rim, 16 at the 3 point line)
Mfiondu Kabengele went 22/29 at the rim his only blemishes were his lackluster performance in mid-range shooting and 51.3% shooting at the line (on 39 attempts)

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	Late Clock Total	648	0.941	610	45.0%	51.9%	109	198	55.1%	39	108	36.1%	66	170	38.8%	116	164	70.7%	97	15.0%	105	42	9	54
Braian Angola	Late Clock	117	0.906	106	41.0%	51.8%	8	19	42.1%	8	13	61.5%	18	51	35.3%	20	25	80.0%	22	18.8%	24	12	3	9
Terance Mann	Late Clock	102	0.912	93	48.0%	50.0%	25	40	62.5%	8	21	38.1%	3	14	21.4%	18	24	75.0%	15	14.7%	17	8	0	9
Phil Cofer	Late Clock	97	1.206	117	47.3%	56.6%	17	27	63.0%	9	21	42.9%	17	43	39.5%	14	19	73.7%	14	14.4%	7	1	2	4
Trent Forrest	Late Clock	72	0.611	44	33.3%	34.5%	10	26	38.5%	3	11	27.3%	1	5	20.0%	15	19	78.9%	5	6.9%	27	8	4	15
CJ Walker	Late Clock	69	0.797	55	40.4%	50.0%	10	18	55.6%	0	7	0.0%	9	22	40.9%	8	14	57.1%	8	11.6%	13	6	0	7
Mfiondu Kabengele	Late Clock	62	0.774	48	31.6%	34.2%	9	21	42.9%	1	13	7.7%	2	4	50.0%	22	31	71.0%	9	14.5%	3	0	0	3
M.J. Walker	Late Clock	49	1.245	61	51.2%	63.4%	7	14	50.0%	4	9	44.4%	10	18	55.6%	9	12	75.0%	7	14.3%	8	5	0	3
Christ Koumadje	Late Clock	31	1.355	42	69.2%	69.2%	15	21	71.4%	3	5	60.0%	0	0	0.0%	6	9	66.7%	5	16.1%	0	0	0	0
PJ Savoy	Late Clock	23	1.043	24	47.1%	64.7%	0	2	0.0%	2	4	50.0%	6	11	54.5%	2	3	66.7%	2	8.7%	2	1	0	1
Ike Obiagu	Late Clock	18	0.778	14	54.5%	54.5%	6	8	75.0%	0	3	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	2	8	25.0%	6	33.3%	0	0	0	0
Brandon Allen	Late Clock	5	0.800	4	66.7%	66.7%	1	1	100.0%	1	1	100.0%	0	1	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	2	40.0%	3	0	0	3

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	Late Clock Total	995	0.971	966	44.1%	51.7%	179	298	60.1%	53	178	29.8%	123	329	37.4%	133	200	66.5%	100	10.1%	174	56	15	103
Charles Matthews	Late Clock	206	0.859	177	41.6%	46.4%	33	59	55.9%	16	51	31.4%	15	44	34.1%	34	56	60.7%	33	16.0%	30	13	4	13
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman	Late Clock	180	1.039	187	45.6%	55.1%	29	45	64.4%	10	32	31.3%	28	70	40.0%	25	32	78.1%	5	2.8%	40	8	2	30
Moritz Wagner	Late Clock	168	1.298	218	52.1%	59.2%	56	82	68.3%	8	29	27.6%	24	58	41.4%	18	32	56.3%	15	8.9%	9	1	0	8
Zavier Simpson	Late Clock	127	0.677	86	37.4%	43.4%	18	37	48.6%	5	16	31.3%	11	38	28.9%	7	15	46.7%	13	10.2%	38	16	1	21
Duncan Robinson	Late Clock	77	1.013	78	41.3%	53.2%	9	15	60.0%	2	5	40.0%	15	43	34.9%	11	11	100.0%	8	10.4%	14	3	3	8
Jordan Poole	Late Clock	61	1.082	66	40.0%	53.0%	4	9	44.4%	3	10	30.0%	13	31	41.9%	13	15	86.7%	4	6.6%	5	1	1	3
Jon Teske	Late Clock	48	1.042	50	52.8%	52.8%	14	23	60.9%	5	13	38.5%	0	0	0.0%	12	19	63.2%	3	6.3%	5	0	1	4
Xavier Simpson	Late Clock	34	0.941	32	52.0%	56.0%	9	14	64.3%	2	5	40.0%	2	6	33.3%	4	6	66.7%	4	11.8%	7	3	1	3
Isaiah Livers	Late Clock	31	0.903	28	37.5%	52.1%	1	3	33.3%	1	7	14.3%	7	14	50.0%	3	5	60.0%	7	22.6%	8	3	2	3
Eli Brooks	Late Clock	27	0.407	11	23.5%	32.4%	0	1	0.0%	1	4	25.0%	3	12	25.0%	0	1	0.0%	4	14.8%	8	2	0	6
Jaaron Simmons	Late Clock	15	0.533	8	18.2%	27.3%	0	2	0.0%	0	3	0.0%	2	6	33.3%	2	2	100.0%	3	20.0%	8	4	0	4
Ibi Watson	Late Clock	11	0.818	9	28.6%	42.9%	0	0	0.0%	0	2	0.0%	2	5	40.0%	3	4	75.0%	1	9.1%	1	1	0	0

Late Clock

Michigan: 41.3% O, 33.1% D

Florida State: 29.0% O, 34.8% D

Moritz Wagner is one of Michigan’s safety valves in the late clock offense thanks to his 41.4% shooting from deep and 68.3% shooting at the rim, good for a total of 218 points (1.298 PPP)
Zavier Simpson is not one of their go to scorers, but he is a facilitator for the Wolverines, dishing for 21 treys and 16 layups at the rim, finishing second in assists in the late clock.
Abdur-Rahkman was outstanding in this frame, shooting 64.4% at the rim, 40% beyond the arc, and 78% at the line with just 5 turnovers (2.8%). That young man is doing his best to live up to that name with those kinds of numbers.
Phil Cofer leads the Seminoles in late clock points (120 on 97 possessions, 1.206 PPP), thanks in part to 17/43 (39.5%, 59.2% eFG%) shooting on late clock 3pt shots (Angola had 18)
Braian Angola led the team in turnovers with 22 (to 24 assists, 33 points created + 106 scored = 139 points he was involved in), but Trent Forrest was stellar in this time frame, picking up 27 assists (15 3pt assists, 8 at the rim) to just 5 turnovers (42 points created off assists + 44 points scored = 86 points he was involved in)

Team by Time Interval	Rebound Type	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast %	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	Total	353	1.122	396	53.7%	59.8%	99	163	60.7%	13	41	31.7%	33	66	50.0%	73	108	67.6%	30	8.5%	44	30.3%	16	2	26
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked Rim	24	1.167	28	50.0%	61.1%	4	8	50.0%	1	4	25.0%	4	6	66.7%	6	9	66.7%	2	8.3%	6	66.7%	1	1	4
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 2ptJ	8	0.000	0	0.0%	0.0%	0	3	0.0%	0	3	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	1	0.0%	1	12.5%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 3pt	2	2.500	5	100.0%	125.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	1	100.0%	1	1	100.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	2	100.0%	0	1	1
Offensive Rebound	After Missed Rim	121	1.107	134	53.5%	57.6%	38	68	55.9%	7	17	41.2%	8	14	57.1%	20	33	60.6%	6	5.0%	11	20.8%	4	0	7
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 2ptJ	54	1.093	59	59.0%	62.8%	18	26	69.2%	2	3	66.7%	3	10	30.0%	10	15	66.7%	9	16.7%	5	21.7%	2	0	3
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 3pt	129	1.178	152	54.6%	62.4%	36	53	67.9%	2	13	15.4%	15	31	48.4%	31	43	72.1%	12	9.3%	18	34.0%	8	0	10
Offensive Rebound	After Missed FT	10	1.600	16	66.7%	77.8%	3	4	75.0%	1	1	100.0%	2	4	50.0%	2	2	100.0%	0	0.0%	3	50.0%	1	1	1
Offensive Rebound	After Dead Ball Rebound	5	0.800	4	0.0%	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	4	5	80.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Opponents of Florida State	Total	356	0.978	348	46.2%	51.1%	65	133	48.9%	31	59	52.5%	26	72	36.1%	78	106	73.6%	40	11.2%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked Rim	45	0.822	37	39.5%	43.4%	8	21	38.1%	4	5	80.0%	3	12	25.0%	4	5	80.0%	5	11.1%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 2ptJ	16	0.563	9	25.0%	29.2%	0	0	0.0%	2	5	40.0%	1	7	14.3%	2	2	100.0%	3	18.8%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 3pt	3	0.667	2	33.3%	33.3%	1	1	100.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	2	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Missed Rim	102	1.098	112	54.9%	58.5%	28	52	53.8%	6	10	60.0%	5	9	55.6%	29	38	76.3%	12	11.8%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 2ptJ	73	1.014	74	48.1%	54.6%	12	27	44.4%	7	13	53.8%	7	14	50.0%	15	21	71.4%	9	12.3%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 3pt	104	0.962	100	42.5%	48.1%	14	29	48.3%	11	25	44.0%	9	26	34.6%	23	31	74.2%	10	9.6%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Missed FT	9	1.222	11	66.7%	75.0%	2	3	66.7%	1	1	100.0%	1	2	50.0%	2	4	50.0%	1	11.1%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Dead Ball Rebound	4	0.750	3	0.0%	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	3	5	60.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0	0

Team by Time Interval	Rebound Type	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast %	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	Total	301	1.183	356	55.9%	63.1%	80	121	66.1%	18	34	52.9%	34	81	42.0%	58	80	72.5%	31	10.3%	46	34.8%	9	6	31
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked Rim	36	0.861	31	40.0%	48.3%	5	13	38.5%	2	2	100.0%	5	15	33.3%	2	6	33.3%	4	11.1%	7	58.3%	1	1	5
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 2ptJ	6	0.833	5	40.0%	40.0%	1	2	50.0%	1	1	100.0%	0	2	0.0%	1	2	50.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 3pt	2	2.500	5	100.0%	125.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	1	100.0%	1	1	100.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	2	100.0%	0	1	1
Offensive Rebound	After Missed Rim	61	1.311	80	64.2%	67.0%	29	36	80.6%	2	2	100.0%	3	15	20.0%	9	15	60.0%	2	3.3%	3	8.8%	0	0	3
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 2ptJ	44	1.273	56	58.5%	67.1%	11	21	52.4%	6	9	66.7%	7	11	63.6%	1	2	50.0%	3	6.8%	12	50.0%	3	3	6
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 3pt	142	1.176	167	55.4%	63.9%	34	48	70.8%	5	18	27.8%	17	35	48.6%	38	48	79.2%	19	13.4%	21	37.5%	5	0	16
Offensive Rebound	After Missed FT	10	1.200	12	50.0%	62.5%	0	1	0.0%	1	1	100.0%	1	2	50.0%	7	7	100.0%	3	30.0%	1	50.0%	0	1	0
Opponents of Michigan	Total	304	1.023	311	52.4%	55.3%	85	128	66.4%	20	50	40.0%	13	47	27.7%	62	89	69.7%	37	12.2%	30		25.4%	14	5
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked Rim	29	1.034	30	50.0%	54.5%	8	8	100.0%	1	8	12.5%	2	6	33.3%	6	9	66.7%	3	10.3%	2	18.2%	0	0	2
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 2ptJ	8	0.875	7	60.0%	60.0%	2	3	66.7%	1	1	100.0%	0	1	0.0%	1	4	25.0%	1	12.5%	0	0.0%	0	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Blocked 3pt	0	0.000	0	0.0%	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0		0.0%	0	0
Offensive Rebound	After Missed Rim	78	1.179	92	55.6%	57.1%	29	48	60.4%	4	10	40.0%	2	5	40.0%	20	28	71.4%	3	3.8%	10	28.6%	7	1	2
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 2ptJ	100	0.930	93	48.0%	52.0%	22	35	62.9%	8	20	40.0%	6	20	30.0%	15	21	71.4%	15	15.0%	9	25.0%	2	2	5
Offensive Rebound	After Missed 3pt	80	0.988	79	53.7%	55.6%	22	32	68.8%	5	9	55.6%	2	13	15.4%	19	25	76.0%	13	16.3%	8	27.6%	5	1	2
Offensive Rebound	After Missed FT	9	1.111	10	66.7%	75.0%	2	2	100.0%	1	2	50.0%	1	2	50.0%	1	2	50.0%	2	22.2%	1	25.0%	0	1	0

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	Offensive Rebound Total	304	1.089	331	51.3%	57.7%	75	129	58.1%	12	38	31.6%	29	59	49.2%	70	105	66.7%	27	8.9%	41	14	2	25
Terance Mann	Offensive Rebound	58	1.224	71	57.1%	59.2%	23	35	65.7%	3	9	33.3%	2	5	40.0%	13	16	81.3%	3	5.2%	9	3	0	6
Phil Cofer	Offensive Rebound	44	1.114	49	50.0%	55.6%	12	19	63.2%	2	6	33.3%	4	11	36.4%	9	12	75.0%	3	6.8%	3	1	0	2
Braian Angola	Offensive Rebound	39	0.974	38	43.3%	58.3%	3	7	42.9%	1	4	25.0%	9	19	47.4%	3	4	75.0%	7	17.9%	9	2	1	6
Mfiondu Kabengele	Offensive Rebound	36	0.972	35	43.5%	45.7%	9	17	52.9%	0	5	0.0%	1	1	100.0%	14	22	63.6%	3	8.3%	0	0	0	0
Trent Forrest	Offensive Rebound	35	1.029	36	56.3%	59.4%	8	12	66.7%	0	2	0.0%	1	2	50.0%	17	22	77.3%	3	8.6%	9	3	1	5
Christ Koumadje	Offensive Rebound	28	1.143	32	57.1%	57.1%	10	18	55.6%	2	3	66.7%	0	0	0.0%	8	13	61.5%	1	3.6%	1	1	0	0
CJ Walker	Offensive Rebound	22	1.091	24	47.4%	60.5%	3	7	42.9%	1	4	25.0%	5	8	62.5%	1	3	33.3%	2	9.1%	3	1	0	2
M.J. Walker	Offensive Rebound	17	1.118	19	42.9%	53.6%	2	5	40.0%	1	2	50.0%	3	7	42.9%	4	4	100.0%	1	5.9%	6	3	0	3
Ike Obiagu	Offensive Rebound	14	0.786	11	62.5%	62.5%	5	8	62.5%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	9	11.1%	2	14.3%	0	0	0	0
PJ Savoy	Offensive Rebound	10	1.600	16	60.0%	80.0%	0	1	0.0%	2	3	66.7%	4	6	66.7%	0	0	0.0%	1	10.0%	0	0	0	0
Brandon Allen	Offensive Rebound	1	0.00	0	0.0%	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	1	100.0%	1	0	0	1

Players by Time Interval	Time Interval	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	Offensive Rebound Total	258	1.205	311	56.9%	64.5%	66	101	65.3%	16	31	51.6%	30	65	46.2%	57	79	72.2%	27	10.5%	43	9	6	28
Charles Matthews	Offensive Rebound	47	0.830	39	45.7%	47.1%	13	24	54.2%	2	5	40.0%	1	6	16.7%	6	9	66.7%	4	8.5%	7	3	1	3
Moritz Wagner	Offensive Rebound	42	1.524	64	71.4%	77.1%	18	23	78.3%	3	4	75.0%	4	8	50.0%	10	16	62.5%	3	7.1%	3	1	0	2
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman	Offensive Rebound	32	1.563	50	69.2%	80.8%	8	9	88.9%	4	7	57.1%	6	10	60.0%	8	10	80.0%	4	12.5%	9	1	0	8
Jon Teske	Offensive Rebound	30	1.033	31	57.1%	57.1%	9	15	60.0%	3	6	50.0%	0	0	0.0%	7	11	63.6%	2	6.7%	4	0	1	3
Zavier Simpson	Offensive Rebound	25	0.680	17	42.9%	53.6%	1	5	20.0%	2	2	100.0%	3	7	42.9%	2	6	33.3%	5	20.0%	6	0	1	5
Duncan Robinson	Offensive Rebound	20	1.950	39	57.9%	76.3%	3	5	60.0%	1	1	100.0%	7	13	53.8%	10	10	100.0%	1	5.0%	0	0	0	0
Jordan Poole	Offensive Rebound	15	1.000	15	37.5%	50.0%	1	1	100.0%	0	1	0.0%	2	6	33.3%	7	7	100.0%	2	13.3%	3	0	1	2
Isaiah Livers	Offensive Rebound	15	1.133	17	50.0%	60.7%	4	6	66.7%	0	1	0.0%	3	7	42.9%	0	1	0.0%	2	13.3%	4	1	2	1
Austin Davis	Offensive Rebound	8	1.500	12	66.7%	66.7%	6	8	75.0%	0	1	0.0%	0	0	0.0%	0	1	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0	0	0
Ibi Watson	Offensive Rebound	7	1.286	9	40.0%	60.0%	0	1	0.0%	0	1	0.0%	2	3	66.7%	3	4	75.0%	0	0.0%	1	1	0	0
Xavier Simpson	Offensive Rebound	7	1.571	11	75.0%	87.5%	1	2	50.0%	1	1	100.0%	1	1	100.0%	4	4	100.0%	1	14.3%	1	0	0	1

Offensive Rebounds

Michigan: 11.2% O, 11.3% D

Florida State: 13.7% O, 13.7% D

Michigan gathered 97 of their 301 offensive rebounds on shots at the rim (243 missed rim attempts, 40% recovery rate) and 142 of 561 missed 3pt attempts (26% recovery rate, or 48% of all Michigan offensive rebounds.)
Michigan did not bring in offensive rebounds at a very high rate, but when they did, they found exceptionally efficient shots, with 66.1% shooting at the rim and 42% from 3 (63% eFG%, 31 of 34 assisted)
FSU gathered 29.8% of their missed 3pt attempts (or 41% of all FSU offensive rebounds came off missed shots from deep
FSU Gathered 43.6% of their missed shots at the rim (or 37% of all FSU offensive rebounds came off missed shots at the rim)
Terance Mann Led the Seminoles with 71 points on offensive rebound possessions, thanks in large part to 65.7% shooting at the rim, hitting a couple clutch three pointers, and a much needed 13/16 performance (81.3%) at the line.
Mfiondu Kabengele may be one of the best offensive rebounders out right now with the way he's been pulling them down. Watching him play, it is easy to see his potential.

Possessions by Possession Start

(After Opponent Score, Defensive Rebound, Deadball Turnover, or Steal)

Teams by Possession Type	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast %	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Florida State	2233	1.094	2443	46.3%	52.4%	514	846	60.8%	122	349	35.0%	225	664	33.9%	496	726	68.3%	400	17.9%	448	52.0%	224	38	186
After Opponent Scores	998	1.084	1082	44.6%	51.0%	204	355	57.5%	64	176	36.4%	106	307	34.5%	228	345	66.1%	190	19.0%	183	48.9%	77	19	87
After Defensive Rebounds	799	1.046	836	44.5%	51.0%	166	280	59.3%	36	106	34.0%	83	254	32.7%	183	250	73.2%	137	17.1%	154	54.0%	73	13	68
After Steals	215	1.400	301	62.2%	66.3%	96	123	78.0%	8	21	38.1%	16	49	32.7%	45	67	67.2%	24	11.2%	66	55.0%	51	3	12
After Dead Ball Turnovers	221	0.982	217	44.0%	49.5%	46	86	53.5%	14	44	31.8%	20	52	38.5%	37	61	60.7%	49	22.2%	44	55.0%	22	3	19
Opponents of Florida State	2238	1.024	2291	42.4%	49.2%	367	728	50.4%	174	452	38.5%	255	698	36.5%	444	621	71.5%	436	19.5%	380	47.7%	145	42	193
After Opponent Scores	1086	0.993	1078	41.3%	48.1%	153	324	47.2%	95	247	38.5%	123	328	37.5%	213	303	70.3%	216	19.9%	176	47.4%	60	24	92
After Defensive Rebounds	751	1.051	789	42.8%	49.9%	127	252	50.4%	58	151	38.4%	93	247	37.7%	140	199	70.4%	128	17.0%	138	49.6%	52	14	72
After Steals	177	1.153	204	50.4%	55.8%	49	77	63.6%	6	13	46.2%	15	49	30.6%	49	64	76.6%	39	22.0%	32	45.7%	20	1	11
After Dead Ball Turnovers	224	0.942	211	40.4%	46.5%	38	75	50.7%	15	41	36.6%	23	72	31.9%	36	48	75.0%	52	23.2%	33	43.4%	13	3	17

Teams by Possession Type	P o s s	P P P	Pts	FG %	eFG %	Rim Made	Rim Att	Rim %	2ptJ Made	2ptJ Att	2ptJ %	3pt Made	3pt Att	3pt %	FTM	FTA	FT %	TO	TO %	Ast (Tot)	Ast %	Ast (Rim)	Ast (2ptJ)	Ast (3pt)
Michigan	2376	1.129	2682	46.9%	54.8%	522	806	64.8%	119	370	32.2%	326	887	36.8%	422	637	66.2%	325	13.7%	527	54.5%	206	37	284
After Opponent Scores	1033	1.127	1164	46.7%	54.9%	206	332	62.0%	65	184	35.3%	146	377	38.7%	184	282	65.2%	146	14.1%	209	50.1%	66	19	124
After Defensive Rebounds	884	1.110	981	46.8%	54.9%	199	297	67.0%	34	117	29.1%	122	344	35.5%	149	230	64.8%	123	13.9%	206	58.0%	84	13	109
After Steals	221	1.226	271	51.5%	57.9%	67	102	65.7%	9	23	39.1%	25	71	35.2%	44	56	78.6%	28	12.7%	58	57.4%	35	2	21
After Dead Ball Turnovers	238	1.088	259	43.6%	51.2%	49	73	67.1%	11	46	23.9%	32	92	34.8%	43	67	64.2%	27	11.3%	53	57.6%	21	3	29
Opponents of Michigan	2380	0.974	2317	43.1%	48.2%	450	779	57.8%	197	584	33.7%	198	596	33.2%	429	600	71.5%	458	19.2%	379	44.9%	178	54	147
After Opponent Scores	1169	0.962	1124	42.7%	47.6%	215	385	55.8%	106	294	36.1%	94	292	32.2%	200	265	75.5%	232	19.8%	181	43.6%	76	32	73
After Defensive Rebounds	884	0.957	846	42.3%	47.2%	157	267	58.8%	72	212	34.0%	70	228	30.7%	178	260	68.5%	162	18.3%	129	43.1%	64	16	49
After Steals	146	1.014	148	45.5%	50.0%	36	55	65.5%	8	35	22.9%	11	31	35.5%	27	39	69.2%	27	18.5%	24	43.6%	16	0	8
After Dead Ball Turnovers	181	1.072	194	48.1%	55.1%	42	71	59.2%	11	43	25.6%	22	42	52.4%	22	34	64.7%	33	18.2%	44	58.7%	22	6	16

A rim heavy offense (39% of all attempts, 64.8% FG%) at Michigan has decided to play against FSU (42% of all attempts, 60.8% FG%). If you want to take the ball to the hoop against FSU (50.4% Rim FG% allowed, 57.8% allowed for Michigan), you're gonna have a bad time.
While FSU shoots 68% at the line, Michigan is somehow a little worse with 66.2% shooting at the FT line. If the game turns into a whistle fest this could be a real problem in either direction.

Michigan does not often use the quick transition attack after their opponents have just scored, but when they do the Wolverines have averaged well over 1.000 PPP. After a made 3 point shot by their opponent, 40% of Michigan’s field goal attempts are 3 point attempts where they shot 43.8% (65.7% eFG%) and averaged 1.201 PPP after opponent made three pointers.
Florida State has used the quick transition attack on roughly 20% of possessions following opponent scores managing to shoot 55.3% eFG% but only .960 PPP. After opponent makes from beyond the arc, 39.5% of the Seminoles field goal attempts were also three pointers, where they shot 22.7% (34.1% eFG%) and averaged .759 PPP after opponent made three pointers.

Corners are especially hot for Michigan on defensive rebounds, an area where FSU's defense has also struggled when shooters are capable of making you pay.
After defensive rebounds of missed shots at the rim, Michigan possessions are classified as transition 54.5% of the time (overall transition: 25.3%).
On the season, Michigan has recovered 62.2% of their 98 blocks.
After defensive rebounds of missed shots at the rim, Florida State possessions are classified as transition 52.1% of the time (overall transition: 36.7%)
85 of FSU’s 149 blocks or 57% were recovered by the Seminoles (in 31 games for FSU to Michigan’s 36 that are in my database.)

In Losses, Michigan has allowed teams to shoot 67% at the rim, including 83% at the rim in transition (on 25% transition possessions allowed). Overall, teams shot 60.1% eFG% (45.5% from 3, or 68.3% eFG%) against the Wolverines in Michigan losses, all yielding 1.211 points per possession.
Michigan suffered 9 momentum killing sequences of a Missed 3pt followed by a made 3 pointer by their opponent in 7 losses. When you are dealing with as few possessions as Michigan is, that effect is magnified.
In FSU losses, there were 12 such sequences of a missed 3 pointer followed by a made 3 pointer by the Seminoles’ opponent in 10 losses. The Florida State defense allowed 0.972 PPP and 39.3% shooting from distance in losses (59.0% eFG%.)
FSU allowed their opponents a 33.7% free throw rate in losses.

Here's what I see, you can try to take shots on the right hand side of the rim against FSU. You can also eat tide pods. Neither is advisable.

The Wolverines have to prevent Florida State from breaking down their defense and from scoring at the rim without fouling and allowing a bunch of offensive rebounds.

The Big 10 is one of the slowest paced conferences out there, with only the dregs of the conference approaching 70 possessions a game.

If you successfully get out in transition early and build if not a lead, at least a sense of anxiety from the Wolverines that 65 points won't cut it in this game, the pace of the game will favor FSU's rotation.

Most teams have not been successful at turning Michigan over, but you can actually offensive rebound against them, I'm betting due to their conference style of play, fewer teams aggressively pursue offensive rebounds.

I predict FSU's bigs are fairly successful at limiting play around the rim, but a senior forward leads his team to victory. I've got Noles by 1, but I do not trust what I'm seeing from this Big 10 data, they bake in so much variability with that low of a number of possessions as a conference.

You can follow me on twitter: Follow @SaiemGilani

Fanposts are a section for the fans and do NOT reflect the views of Tomahawk Nation.

FanPost